From Mass Incarceration to
Effective and Sustainable
Decarceration
CONFERENCE REPORT
Inaugural Conference of Smart Decarceration Initiative
September 24 to 27, 2015
Washington University in St. Louis
Contents
Introduction 1
What Does It Mean to Host the First National Conference on Decarceration?
1
Change the Narrative on Incarceration and the Incarcerated
4
Make Criminal Justice Systemwide Innovations
6
Implement Transdisciplinary Policy and Practice Interventions
8
Employ Evidence-Driven Strategies10
Redefining Justice12
Moving Forward13
About Smart Decarceration Initiative15
Recognition15
Introduction
All signs indicate that the United States is leaving an era of mass incarceration and is on the cusp of
an era of decarceration. However, the challenge of decarceration is far greater than simply reducing
the use of incarceration; it involves building an array of policy and practice innovations that replace
incarceration.We have a unique opportunity to rethink, redefine, and reimagine the criminal justice system
and shape the emerging decarceration movement. The challenge of decarceration is far greater than
simply reducing the use of incarceration; it involves building an array of policy and practice innovations
that replace incarceration.
To launch this area of work, Smart Decarceration Initiative (SDI) hosted the first national conference
on decarceration, From Mass Incarceration to Effective and Sustainable Decarceration, on September
24–27, 2015. More than 150 thought-provoking and inspiring leaders in policy, practice, advocacy, and
research joined us at Washington University in St. Louis to present their work, engage in meaningful
discussion, and help set an agenda for moving decarceration forward. The conference promoted
collaboration across disciplines and sectors and stimulated scientifically driven, practical, and applied
policy and community-based social innovations. To ensure effective and sustainable decarceration, we
must plan and do the difficult work of developing a “smart” approach—one that is evidence-driven and
grounded in a social justice orientation.
What It Means to Host the First National Conference on Decarceration
Mass incarceration is increasingly viewed as socially unacceptable. There is increasing political, fiscal, and
moral will for decarceration to occur in the United States. Mass incarceration was fueled by and created a
set of complex circumstances; thus, an era of smart decarceration requires a sophisticated approach.
Prior to the conference, SDI co-directors
Guiding Concepts
Carrie Pettus-Davis, PhD, and Matthew
Epperson, PhD, distributed their seminal
Change the narrative on incarceration and the incarcerated.
work, “Smart Decarceration: Guiding
Make criminal justice systemwide innovations.
Concepts for an Era of Criminal Justice
Transformation,” to conference participants.
Implement transdisciplinary policy and practice interventions.
This concept paper framed the context
of the conference—providing valuable
Employ evidence-driven strategies.
background information on the mass
incarceration epidemic and the climate that
is likely to make decarceration a reality. Additionally, the concept paper articulated the guiding concepts of
the smart decarceration movement. Drs. Pettus-Davis and Epperson assert that applying these core concepts
at the onset of the decarceration era will help transform the criminal justice system and inform the postdecarceration era.
The Smart Decarceration Guiding Concepts provided a comprehensive conceptual framework to
organize the conference in a way that fostered thoughtful conversations, generated innovative solutions,
and proposed poignant questions that must be addressed to substantially reduce the overreliance on
incarceration and alleviate the social disparities within the criminal justice system.
1
The overall goal of the conference was to create an opportunity to imagine, develop, and plan for a
transformed criminal justice system and cast a vision for what truly successful decarceration will look
like. We also aimed to provide guideposts against which we can evaluate the effectiveness of proposed
solutions by articulating the Guiding Concepts for smart decarceration. Finally, we wanted to catalyze
an organized movement that capitalizes on the moment while avoiding the same pitfalls of our
country’s previous attempts at deinstitutionalization.
Our focus was social innovation—devising new practices and policies that advance the social good.
These goals were realized as conference attendees participated in thought-provoking discussion and
transdisciplinary problem solving, and made a commitment to transformation.
This conference resides in an important moment in history. The country is ripe for solutions to
dramatically reduce the untenable numbers of adults entangled in our criminal justice system and the
lingering damage our incarceration binge has inflicted upon individuals, families, and communities.
The convening of the first national conference on decarceration demonstrates that there are those
ready to take up the challenge to end hyper-incarceration, redress social disparities in the criminal
justice system, and engage in the research and social innovation necessary to lead the way from mass
incarceration to effective and sustainable decarceration.
The Report
This report is organized accoring to the four guiding concepts for decarceration. Included in each section
are three parts: The Conversation, The Solutions, and The Questions.
The Conversation
Over the course of the conference, prominent national speakers presented their work in a series of panel
discussions, plenary sessions, and keynote addresses. Each presenter shared their research and practice
expertise before opening the floor for dialogue with the audience. This report shares the highlights
of each presenter’s work and draws out key points for reflection. The aim of the panel discussions and
plenary talks was to craft a conversation that challenged attendees to rethink their current perspectives
on the criminal justice system.
The Solutions
In addition to presenting their individual and organizational work, presenters were asked to present
attendees with innovative research, practice, policy, and advocacy solutions. This report details a few
of these solutions. Also, presenters and attendees joined together in a half-day working group session
to generate social innovations in line with the Guiding Concepts and to create an actionable agenda for
criminal justice system reform.
Presenters and attendees were organized into 12 small working groups, each centered on a unique
cluster of reform strategies that surfaced from a concept-mapping research study of decarceration
priority areas conducted by SDI. These priority areas represent a collection of strategies selected by
nearly 120 stakeholders in criminal justice related practice, research, advocacy, funding, and policy.
12 Priority Areas of Decarceration
7. Responding to Behavioral and Physical Health Needs
1. Sharing Data and Resource Allocation
2. Incorporating Criminogenic Risks and Needs
8. Improving Reentry
3. Implementing Evidence-Driven Innovations
9. Reducing Collateral Consequences
4. Reorienting Responses to Severity of the Crime
10. Building Diversionary Systems
5. Resetting Norms and Narratives
11. Curtailing Sentencing
6. Incorporating Multiple and New Perspectives
12. Narrowing the Funnel to Incarceration
2
The stakeholders identified the 12 clusters as critical areas that need to be addressed to create effective
and sustainable decarceration. At the conference, the 12 small working groups worked to operationalize
these strategies and assess how they embody the four Guiding Concepts of smart decarceration. We
will present several solutions produced during these working group sessions. The aim of generating
actionable solutions—social innovations—at the conference was to redefine the way we think of the
purpose of the criminal justice system and appropriate responses to public safety and well-being.
“Social innovation has made what we think of as human development, progress, and civilization
possible. Social innovation has made possible all of the social systems and institutions that we take for
granted. Unfortunately not all human social innovations are successful. Arguably, mass incarceration in
the United States today is one of those wayward innovations. Humans created mass incarceration, and
we have the ability to uncreate it.”
–Michael Sherraden, director, Center for Social Development
The Question
At the conclusion of each section, we share a question posed by one of the presenters to challenge the
audience, spur discussion, and encourage innovation that will drive smart decarceration. Although we
present several questions from presenters, there were overarching questions for the conference posed
by SDI’s co-directors. The aim of posing such questions was to encourage participants to reimagine
our current justice system and envision how such a system functions in a post-decarceration era. The
questions moved attendees from “describing” the landsape to “creating a futurescape.”
“Do we need to incarcerate this individual at all? If not, what do we need to do instead?
What if incarceration were not an option?”
–SDI Co-Directors Carrie Pettus-Davis and Matthew Epperson
3
Change the Narrative on Incarceration and the Incarcerated
A smart decarceration approach will advance a changing narrative on incarceration and the
incarcerated. It will require challenging the assumptions that incarceration is necessary for public
safety, and that incarceration changes behavior for the better. We must view currently and formerly
incarcerated individuals not as objects for intervention, but as key experts in crafting effective solutions.
Keynote address
Glenn E. Martin, JustLeadershipUSA
Vivian Nixon, College and Community
Fellowship
“The quality of the solutions
depends upon who is impacted by
the problem.” –Vivian Nixon
“There has never been a system of
oppression in this country that we’ve
been able to topple until the very
people that are most oppressed by
that system are able to rise up into
leadership, help define the nature
of the problem and help define the
direction we’re going in and the
solution.” –Glenn E. Martin
The Conversation
In a keynote address, Vivian Nixon, executive director of College
and Community Fellowship, and Glenn E. Martin, founder and
president of JustLeadershipUSA, addressed the role of formerly
incarcerated individuals in the decarceration movement. Following
individual comments, Ms. Nixon and Mr. Martin engaged in a
back-and-forth discussion, challenging one another with the tough
questions that face those who seek to affect change in the criminal
justice system.
They illuminated the many disparities that exist in the criminal
justice system, particularly the racial disparities. They noted the
absence of people of color in leadership positions in the reentry
movement and discussed how directly impacted individuals’ unique
perspective can inform policy solutions.
Ms. Nixon and Mr. Martin challenged the pervasive narratives about
persons with incarceration histories and articulated a narrative
in which directly impacted individuals are activists, leaders, and
innovators of the movement. They drew upon their own experiences
in incarceration to challenge the audience to find ways to open doors
for those closest to problem to take leadership roles in its solution—
at every level, from data gathering and research to policymaking.
Glenn E. Martin and
Vivian Nixon illuminate
disparities in the criminal
justice system, particularly
racial disparities.
4
Panel: Changing the narrative
on incarceration
Jeffrey Draine, School of Social Work,
Temple University
Ernest Drucker, Academy on Public
Health and Criminal Justice, John Jay
College
Azadeh Zohrabi, Ella Baker Center for
Human Rights
“Our liberation is tied up in the
liberation of everyone. We have to
include everyone who has a stake in
it.” –Jeffrey Draine
The panelists spoke of ways their own research works to change the
narrative on both incarceration and the incarcerated, detailing how it
reframes recurrent issues and themes in the criminal justice system
and actively incorporates multiple perspectives.
Professor Jeffrey Draine, PhD, opened the panel by discussing the
personal experiences of those he had worked alongside who are
most impacted by the issue and how it changed his own approach
to this work, especially in organizing and holding public agencies
accountable. Research Professor Ernest Drucker, PhD, presented his
new website on decarceration and noted the importance of providing
a space for reform experts to share their ideas. Azadeh Zohrabi,
national campaigner, closed the panel by presenting results from
“Who Pays?”, a national participatory action research project that
details the incredible debt, broken family bonds, and the mental and
physical toll that result from mass incarceration.
They noted that there are often much bigger patterns that are at
work in creating entanglement in the justice system that can only be
identified by opening up to newer and wider viewpoints.
The Solutions
Presenter solutions
Working group solutions
Create opportunities for formerly incarcerated adults
and their families to lead participatory research
activities, assist in interpretation of data, and
contribute to writing of research.
Provide opportunities for adults with incarceration
histories to testify before legislative bodies.
Restore right to vote to all returning citizens.
Permit individuals with criminal records to become
police officers and serve in other positions throughout
the criminal justice system.
Organize impacted individuals to engage in political
action.
Place leaders with incarceration histories on parole
boards.
Create/use curriculum for justice-involved adults on
what policy change looks like and how to engage.
Use leaders with incarceration histories to serve as peer
mentors to supervised individuals.
Create participatory budgeting pots of money where
directly impacted individuals can vote on how justice
reinvestment money is spent.
Use adults with incarceration histories to train
positions at all points of the criminal justice system.
Create a truth and reconciliation commission to
organize panels/hearings across the country.
Create a workforce, such as in schools of social work
and psychology and in related fields, that is prepared
to do the work necessary to move decarceration.
Create a protective class for returning citizens so they
cannot be systematically excluded from housing,
education, and employment.
The Question
“If the year was 2030, and we’ve done a significant job of decarcerating our corrections
system, what would the world look like for someone arrested with the same charge as a
person arrested today?”
–Glenn E. Martin
5
Make Criminal Justice Systemwide Innovations
We need to consider how the entire criminal justice system—from law enforcement through the
courts, prisons and jails, and community supervision (such as probation and parole)—has evolved
into one that supports mass incarceration. Although prisons are the most visible manifestation of
mass incarceration, they simply reflect the symptoms of an overall system of policies and practices
that support it. Each sector of the criminal justice system has a critical role in smart decarceration.
Advancing criminal justice systemwide innovations will require policy shifts and developing a
continuum of practice-based interventions.
The Conversation
Panel: Reducing social
disparities, and efficient
reallocation of resources
Reuben J. Miller, School of Social Work,
University of Michigan
Nazgol Ghandnoosh, The Sentencing
Project
Marc Schindler, Justice Policy Institute
“We haven’t always been this way,
and there are models around the
world for how we can scale back our
current system.” –Nazgol Ghandnoosh
The panelists challenged the country to rethink how it could spend
funds if they were diverted from incarceration.
Marc Schindler, executive director of the Justice Policy Institute,
suggested using these funds as a way to provide drug treatment,
job training, adequate housing, or providing transportation within
challenged communities to obtain employment outside of their
neighborhoods. Research analyst Nazgol Ghandnoosh, PhD, of
The Sentencing Project, encouraged reduced sentences across
the board, from “short”-term, long-term, even life sentences,
and she agreed that the resulting savings could be reinvested in
effective rehabilitation and improving public safety. University of
Michigan Assistant Professor Reuben J. Miller, PhD, introduced the
phenomenon of “spaces of concentrated disadvantage,” spaces that
are impacted by the ecological issues stemming from where people
are arrested, incarcerated, and returned.
Ultimately, the United States could reinvest criminal justice funds
into the communities that are most impacted to create the social
supports that may stem trajectories into the criminal justice system.
Reuben J. Miller, left, Marc Schindler and Nazgol Ghandnoosh challenge participants to rethink how the United States could spend funds if
they were diverted from incarceration.
6
Panel: Foundations and
government
Patrick Griffin, MacArthur Foundation
Marie Garcia, National Institute of Justice
Denise Juliano-Bult, National Institute of
Mental Health
Melinda K. McAliney, Lutheran Foundation
of St. Louis
“We’ve done enough that we
can to Band-Aid. Let’s talk about
systematic and transformative
change.” –Melinda K. McAliney
The panelists discussed their agencies’ approaches to funding,
affirming that the criminal justice system is a place where dramatic
change can occur.
Denise Juliano-Bult, chief, systems research program, spoke of
the criminal justice system as a place where we can find and help
improve outcomes for people with mental illnesses. Melinda K.
McAliney, program director, noted that this field is served by
many small nonprofit organizations that struggle to amass the
resources necessary to adequately address the needs of such a large
population. She said this is also a challenge to funders who do not
have the resources to fund all of the organizations doing this work.
Marie Garcia, PhD, social science analyst, encouraged conference
participants to submit applications to potential funders that focus
on innovation. Patrick Griffin, program officer in juvenile justice
in U.S. programs, ended the panel by stating that it would take a
multitude of funders—especially at the local level—to get involved.
Overall, the four panelists agreed that decarceration-focused
organizations could have tremendous impact in this area and
generate large-scale, sustainable change.
The Solutions
Presenter solutions
Working group solutions
Reduce sentence length and use savings to invest in
treatment and social services.
Engage system in redesign of their own jobs from
institutional to community-based setting.
Establish a 20-year limit on prison sentences.
Increase number of staff who conduct prerelease
planning and make such planning mandatory.
Bring family into reentry programming.
Create community councils to handle low-level/
nonviolent cases instead of using criminal courts.
Develop a meaningful process for geriatric release.
Build both brokering and bridging models for building
social capital for formerly incarcerated adults.
Create alternatives to bail.
Individualize parole conditions and schedule
opportunities to review and revise.
Develop relationships with funders and propose winwin solutions that achieve respective objectives.
Use transitional release processes to include short
stays in community before full release.
Funders can pool money to fund projects that cover a
larger swath of the system.
Eliminate incarceration as response to technical
violations.
Create media campaign focused on whole system (instead of only incarceration) and systemwide solutions.
Training in trauma-informed care for police officers and
first responders.
The Question
“We have to question how America thinks about and uses jails. We have to question the
acceptance of the idea that incarceration is the solution to a problem.”
–Patrick Griffin
7
Implement Transdisciplinary Policy and Practice Interventions
The smart decarceration approach must build the capacity to respond to the devolving of jails and
prisons by promoting behavioral and primary health, housing, education, employment, and civic
opportunities. Transdisciplinary perspectives are necessary to redefine and reconsider what constitutes
truly criminal behaviors, what are symptoms of public health crises, what kinds of behaviors policy and
practice innovations can prevent, and when it is truly necessary to confine human beings.
Panel: Propelling multisector
social innovation to advance
smart decarceration
Michael P. Jacobson, CUNY Institute for
State and Local Governance
Margaret E. Severson, University of
Kansas, School of Social Welfare
The Conversation
The three speakers on the panel encouraged us to look ahead
and craft solutions for ending the era of mass incarceration by
envisioning the justice system and the future that we want to see.
Michael P. Jacobson, PhD, executive director of CUNY Institute
for State and Local Governance, opened the panel by outlining
what an end to mass incarceration would look like, stating that
mass incarceration would cease to be “mass” at rate of 140-150 per
100,000 individuals. In real numbers, this would mean shrinking
the current incarcerated population from 1.5 million to 500,000.
George Lombardi, Missouri Department of
Professor Margaret E. Severson challenged the audience to consider
Corrections
how to incentivize not only wellness but also polices that ensure
“It’s going to take a combination of reentering individuals remain well and out of prison. George
practices, policies, and politics to get Lombardi, director of the Missouri Department of Corrections,
from mass incarceration to where we concluded the panel with his reflections on where innovations are
necessary—such as trauma—to propel decarceration forward. All of
want to go.” –Michael P. Jacobson
the panelists expressed the need for multiple sectors to contribute to
decarceration efforts.
Plenary: Criminal records post
decarceration
Michael Pinard, Francis King Carey School
of Law, University of Maryland
“Everyone with a criminal record
faces diminished employment
possibilities, but for Blacks with
criminal records the hurdles are
higher and they’re bolted more
securely to the gravel.”
–Michael Pinard
Professor Michael Pinard, co-director of the clinical law program,
described the disproportionate impact of collateral consequences
on communities of color and noted that the criminal justice system
preys on impoverished communities—from policing to sentencing
to the restrictions and stigma that follow individuals after their
release from incarceration.
He asserted that our society has relied on incarceration
economically and reflexively to the detriment and deterioration of
individuals, families, and whole communities. The expense of the
criminal justice system is exorbitant, and paid for mostly on the
backs of poor minorities.
Professor Pinard then dug into the harsh realities of living with a
criminal record post-release. He noted that more than 70 million
individuals in the United States have a criminal record. The
prevalence of criminal records on the Internet and few regulations
governing who can access them leads to an environment in
which people are unable to shed these relics of a criminal past.
Criminal records often restrict or eliminate access to critical social
resources such as employment and housing, continuing to penalize
the individual long after their sentence. Therefore, collateral
consequences are attached to the conviction—and by extension, the
individual, rather than the sentence.
8
Panelists George
Lombardi, left, Margaret
E. Severson, and Michael
P. Jacobson say multiple
sectors must contribute
to decarceration efforts.
The Solutions
Presenter solutions
Working group solutions
Increase funds individuals receive upon release to
meet basic needs.
Partner corrections systems with developers to build
affordable housing that fosters a successful reentry
environment.
Incentivize corrections systems that lower recidivism
rates.
Increase incentives (e.g., tax breaks) for companies that
employ adults with conviction histories.
Increase transportation access for returning citizens
so they may gain/maintain employment.
Integrate the business community through economic
and workforce development.
Create media guides for how to handle stories of
crime and incarceration.
Ensure Medicaid coverage for those in prison/jail
continues upon release.
Address trauma in incarcerated populations.
Reduce public access to criminal records.
Promote legislation that requires minimum standards
of medical healthcare in correctional facilities.
Inform all defendants, preplea, of potential collateral
consequences.
Pair social service professionals with police officers
when first responders.
Review collateral consequences by jurisdiction and
eliminate those deemed unnecessary.
Eliminate automatic collateral consequences.
The Question
“What is the one innovation, the one change, that would alter the nature of the criminal
justice system? What would it look like if we started over?”
–Margaret E. Severson
9
Employ Evidence-Driven Strategies
Smart decarceration requires rigorous testing and timely incorporation of emerging evidence. The
majority of policies and practices that fostered mass incarceration were implemented and sustained
without proper evaluation, and were not subject to discontinuation in spite of poor outcomes. We must
be sure not to treat decarceration as a fad, but rather as an era in which we hold ourselves accountable
for developing the best approaches. Built into any new intervention should be an expectation that
people and systems evolve and therefore approaches must adapt and respond accordingly. Interventions
should be expected to undergo needs assessments and evaluations of theory, logic, process, outcomes,
and efficiency. In short, science must drive the process of smart decarceration.
The Conversation
The panelists shared their views on key areas where the
Panel: Accelerating research,
implementation of evidence-driven practices could accelerate both
practice, and policy exchanges practice and policy changes. Faye S. Taxman, PhD, director of the
Cetner for Advancing Correctional Excellence!, spoke about the need
to optimize reform
for increased implementation of evidence-based programming. She
Faye S. Taxman, George Mason University, asserted that unraveling the criminal justice system would involve
Center for Advancing Correctional
building capacity in our communities to interact with people with
Excellence!
dignity and in their own support systems. Julian Adler, director
Julian Adler, director of Research-Practice of Research-Practice Strategies, encouraged not only the use of
evidence-driven assessments but also implementing them with
Strategies, Center for Court Innovation
fidelity. He warned that the failure to execute even effective methods
Kathy Saltmarsh, executive director,
with fidelity would fail to yield the results necessary to end mass
Illinois Sentencing Policy Advisory Council
incarceration.
“Mass incarceration ends when the
criminal justice system is no longer
the place of first resort.”
Kathy Saltmarsh, executive director of the Illinois Sentencing Policy
Advisory Council, discussed the powerful tool of appropriating
money and encouraged participants to obtain seats at the table
where the allocation of funds, particularly tax dollars, is decided.
The panelists concluded that, to deliver services that are responsive
to those who are involved with the criminal justice system, we need
to diversify our approach and accept that the current trajectory of
the system—from arrest to court to incarceration to community
supervision—may not be suitable and effective for all who enter
the system.
James E. McLeod
Memorial Lecture
Rebecca Ginsburg, PhD, co-founder and director of the Education
Justice Project, delivered a compelling presentation, “Why
Universities Should Be in Prisons,” challenging universities and
other institutions of higher learning to be at the forefront of social
justice by educating those who are incarcerated.
–Faye S. Taxman
Rebecca Ginsburg, University of Illinois
at Urbana-Champaign
“Issues related to incarceration and
criminal justice are on the forefront
of civil rights struggles in the country
today. And it’s imperative that
universities and institutions of higher
learning be at the forefront of civil
rights struggles.” –Rebecca Ginsburg
Citing the important connection between higher education
opportunities during incarceration and reduced recidivism rates,
Dr. Ginsburg offered steps that universities could take to assume
a lead role in proving quality education while addressing historic
disparities in education attainment—at all levels—in our country.
10
Faye S. Taxman, left,
Kathy Saltmarsh, and
Julian Adler discuss
optimizing reform.
The Solutions
Presenter solutions
Working group solutions
Reclassify certain criminal statutes and determine
that some things should no longer be criminal.
Conduct an analysis of sentencing enhancements
and other factors that extend terms to determine
effectiveness.
Establish common set of trainings for all sectors of
criminal justice system within a jurisdiction.
Conduct research on fundamental drivers of contact
with criminal justice system.
Maximize accuracy and transparency of risk
assessments.
Package academic research results in language and
concepts that are accessible to decision-makers.
Increase access to post-secondary education within
correctional institutions.
Focus assessments on needs and assets instead of
risks and danger.
Provide briefs/information packet to politicians and
decision makers so they make informed decisions and
have support for decisions.
Devise a standardized process for gathering criminal
justice data.
Find core group of reporters or media members to
educate and continue to inform.
Conduct cost-benefit analysis on return of investment
for tax dollars spent in criminal justice system.
Use translational tools to determine which services
should be provided and evaluate quality of services.
The Question
“How many people are involved in appropriating money at either the state or local level?
Tax and spend is our greatest power. We need to have the discussion, ‘What should we
raise revenues to pay for and what should we take revenues from?’”
–Kathy Saltmarsh
11
Redefining Justice
“We have to think about the language of the system and whether we adopt the language of the
system or whether we move away from that language because that language is loaded and that
language was created for a very specific purpose ... to ‘other’ people in the system.” –Glenn E. Martin
Glenn E. Martin, left, John T. Chisholm and Ronald D. Simpson-Bey challenge the audience to redefine the criminal justice system.
Redefining Justice in America
John T. Chisholm, Milwaukee County
District Attorney’s Office
Ronald D. Simpson-Bey,
JustLeadershipUSA, American Friends
Service Committee
Moderated by Glenn E. Martin,
JustLeadershipUSA
Conference presenters challenged attendees not only to reimagine
a criminal justice system that is Conference presenters challenged
attendees not only to reimagine a criminal justice system that is
humane and socially just, but also to rethink and redefine terms
central to the conversation.
Ronald D. Simpson-Bey, a decarceration leader, and John T.
Chisholm, district attorney, challenged the audience to rethink
how we determine who is an “offender” and who is “victim.” They
also encouraged attendees to envision a prosecutorial system that
is not adversarial and defined by the number of convictions, but
that is defined by justice. From seemingly diametrically opposed
positions on the criminal justice continuum, Mr. Chisholm and
Mr. Simpson-Bey discussed ways prosecutorial practices could be
reformed while upholding principles of accountability and public
safety in order to advance criminal justice reform.
“We have to get away from the
concept that all of our problems
that exist in a community can
somehow be funneled into the
criminal justice system and that the In 1985, a prosecutor wrongfully convicted Mr. Simpson-Bey, and
system will solve those problems.” he was imprisoned for 27 years. While he was incarcerated, his
–John T. Chisholm
20-year-old son was murdered by a 14–year-old boy; Mr. SimpsonBey, however, advocated that the boy be tried as a juvenile to avoid
the harsh adult system. Mr. Simpson-Bey’s story is one of restoration
and healing, both at the individual level and at the system level,
where he works to restore and heal a broken criminal justice system.
Mr. Simpson-Bey is now a national decarceration leader.
12
As district attorney for Milwaukee County, Mr. Chisholm advocates for reform within an often ignored
aspect of the criminal justice system—prosecution. He opened his office to an in-depth look at racial
disparities. His willingness to tackle this challenge head-on has gained momentum and is opening the
door for other jurisdictions to follow suit to redress racial inequity in the justice system. Mr. Chisholm
firmly stated that prosecutors have a responsibility to the community and a unique role in the criminal
justice system. As such, they must be willing to make the right decision and to execute it in the right way.
Throughout the conference, other terms underwent revisions.
Redefining Victim/Offender: The lines between who is a victim and who is an offender in the criminal
justice system is not as stark as many believe. As Mr. Martin says, “I didn’t learn how to pull a gun on
someone until someone pulled a gun on me.” The cycle of incarceration and its contributing factors
runs so rampant in some communities that the boundaries between “offender” and “victim” are no
longer clear.
Redefining Public Safety: A prevalent belief was that incarceration made communities safer. However, 40
years of our nation’s overreliance on incarceration has not increased public safety; in fact, many argue
that hyper-incarceration has contributed to the destabilization of some communities, diminishing
overall safety and well-being. How we choose to respond to crime will determine public safety, but that
response does not necessitate incapacitation.
Redefining Success: We must look beyond recidivism as an outcome for criminal justice system
interventions. The opposite of mass incarceration is not mass release. This era of decarceration will
not be marked solely by the number of incarcerated individuals but also our ability to redress social
disparities within the system and to maximize public safety and well-being.
Finally, presenters and attendees alike cautioned against using terms such as “ex-offender” or focusing
on incarceration as the defining characteristic for an individual who has had criminal justice system
contact. Instead, presenters and attendees favored terms such as “those most impacted,” “those closest to
the issue,” and “returning citizen” for individuals who experienced incarceration.
Moving Forward
The excitement and momentum of the conference continued beyond the days of panels, plenary
sessions, and keynote addresses.
Emerging Leaders Training
David Mensah, JustLeadershipUSA
“Leadership is looking at the situation
of the moment and understanding
that if you are directly impacted then
you have an obligation to address
those issues.” –Vivan Nixon
Smart Decarceration: Achieving
Criminal Justice Transformation
in the 21st Century
SDI partnered with JustLeadershipUSA to provide an Emerging
Leaders Training to adults with prior justice system involvement
from the Midwest region. The leadership training included
communication skills, relationship development, and interviewing
and employment skills. The training is designed around three key
principles: responsibility, self-reflection, and collective leadership.
Ultimately, the training equips those closest to the issue to take a
leadership role within the decarceration movement. The group
of leaders continues to connect over the ideas shared during the
training.
One major outcome of the conference is an edited book,
forthcoming from Oxford University Press, that details evidence,
conceptual frameworks, and an action plan for sustainable and
effective decarceration. The volume, tentatively titled Smart
Decarceration: Achieving Criminal Justice Transformation in the
21st Century, takes up the challenge of transforming America’s
approach to criminal justice in a forward-thinking and solutionsfocused manner, taking into account the realities of the current
sociopolitical context. Smart Decarceration grapples with the
following questions: What if incarceration were not an option for
most? Whose voices are essential in this era of decarceration? What
is the state of evidence for solutions? How do we generate and adopt
empirically driven reforms? How do we redefine and rethink justice
in the United States?
13
National Decarceration
Network
SDI plans to create a national network focused on collaboration
and advancing the decarceration agenda. This network will serve
to promote new perspectives and approaches with an aim toward
creating national impact.
Post-Conference Action Steps
Attendees created their own post-conference action steps. Following the small working groups,
participants were instructed to complete a self-addressed postcard with a personal and organizational
commitment to continue the decarceration movement. Two weeks after the conference, the postcards
were mailed to attendees to remind them of their action steps. Below are selected post-conference action
steps from attendees as well as a word cloud depicting the most common terms of all action steps.
Educate public about failures of current system and
decarceration.
Invite a returning citizen onto our board.
Share my personal story of incarceration to influence
conversation.
Incorporate both staff and clients into organizational
decision-making.
Volunteer with an organization that works toward
decarceration.
Hold awareness events on campus.
Add “decarceration” to my vocabulary.
Organize student tours of prisons and agencies that
serve reentering adults.
Talk about decarceration with my family and friends.
Institute empirical assessments into our own reentry
and diversion programs.
Build a feature-rich data collection tool and share it
with agencies.
Share data and information our agencies gather with
others.
Learn more about judges we vote to elect.
Research evidence-based practices to use in our
reentry organization.
14
About Smart Decarceration Initiative
Smart Decarceration Initiative (SDI) aims to build social capacity to reduce incarceration rates in ways
that are effective, sustainable, and socially just. We achieve this through three primary strategies:
•
Advancing innovations in policy and practice
•
Identifying a continuum of viable exit strategies from the criminal justice system
•
Cultivating networks to promote new approaches and perspectives
Smart Decarceration Initiative, based at the Center for Social Development (CSD), is led by Carrie
Pettus-Davis, PhD, assistant professor at the Brown School of Social Work, Washington University in St.
Louis, and Matthew Epperson, PhD, associate professor at the University of Chicago School of Social
Service Administration. The joining of the Brown School of Social Work and the School of Social
Service Administration positions SDI to engage in the type of evidence gathering and social innovation
necessary to usher in the era of decarceration.
For more information on SDI and to view video, PowerPoints, and photos from the conference, visit
SDI’s pages on CSD’s website, csd.wustl.edu.
A Special Thank You
Smart Decarceration Initiative would like to thank Edward F. Lawlor, PhD, dean and William E. Gordon
Distinguished Professor of the George Warren Brown School of Social Work, and Michael Sherraden,
PhD, founding director of the Center for Social Development at the Brown School, for their support of
our work. Also, we want to thank Maxine Clark and Bob Fox for hosting the conference in the Maxine
Clark Bob Fox Forum, in the Brown School’s Hillman Hall.
Matt Epperson, left, Bob Fox, Carrie Pettus-Davis, Maxine Clark, Edward F. Lawlor, and Michael Sherraden, at the conference.
15
Conference Sponsors
16
Partner Organizations
17